At the end of the video it gently drifts off to the left, either making a turn or due to the camera lock drifting. A sudden jump between 1x and 2x zoom makes this look vastly more dramatic than it actually is. This is described in this short video:

It could be a combination of the plane making a turn and the camera lock. If it's flying nearly directly away from the camera and it's really far away (like 50 to 100 miles), then it's still likely going to be moving relative to the camera direction, and indeed we see the camera heading at the top got from 4°R to 8° L, at which point the tracking seems to fail.

So I'd say the entire incident likely consisted of dodgy radar returns and a distant plane not on the radar.

I will only comment one thing for now. The visual comparison you used between the EO/IR (black hot) screen capture from the Chilean Navy footage (Wescam MX-15) and the screen capture from the Super Hornet's ATFLIR targeting pod is not really reliable for the simple reason that the targeting pod is in TV mode (black and white). In other words, it is not an EO/IR mode unlike the Chilean Navy screen capture you posted.
Nevertheless, the ATFLIR footage is in IR at times but in white hot, you can change it to black hot with Gimp or similar.

The video you are about to see seems to be a FLIR-hud-vision captured by one of the jets, that were sent out to intercept the unknown object. The materials we (me and one other ATS member who wished to remain nameless) used for this analysis/post were this video, an event-log and a power-point-presentation, but the information included in there has not been worked out yet.The files we have can be released on demand.

RECALL OF AN EVENT LOG OF A SHIP OF THE US-NAVY FLEET
This is the video here and these are the events happened.

Firstly, the video is similar to (though not the same one as) a video purportedly from an Australian jet fighter's HUD (Heads-Up Display) created last year by a film maker called Chris Kenworthy. He created that video as part of a series of "UFO" forming an "immersive artwork" project funded by the Australian Film Commission.
...
Secondly, members of ATS should be slightly suspicious of individuals posting "UFO" videos with a rather vague accompanying story one day after they registered. The lack of any track record on ATS makes it somewhat difficult to assess your credibility. It makes more possible (though of course does not prove) that you are merely a hoaxer that has published a link to a video that you have created.

Attached Files:

I can’t see if this has been posted anywhere, however, if it hasn’t I’ve attached a source link to the Nimitz pilot report that is on the ‘To the Stars Academy’ website. According to the site the "Source" of this report is a highly decorated and recognized expert in aviation and Navy combat flight operations with Top Secret clearance. Although all personally identifiable information has been removed to protect sources and methods. The report describes in detail what happened during the incident and as such I feel it provides some good first hand information about the case.https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/

Something about this incident keeps bugging me. I'd like to refer you to an article posted by another ex Navy pilot and apparent personal friend of Cmdr. Dave Fravor...Paco Chierici from fightersweep.com (a military aviation blog, not a UFO site as far as I can see). Keep it mind this was posted in 2015, years before this recent disclosure by the Pentagon.https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

My summary of the story as supposedly relayed to him by Fravor:

-The Missile Crusier USS Princeton was tracking activity by "Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs)" focusing around a point about 30 nautical miles off the Baja peninsula for 'several days'

-'Radar contacts would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds' along with the flight patterns inconsistent with any known aircraft that we always hear in UFO stories

-Princeton takes advantage of the presence of nearby aircraft doing exercises out of the carrier USS Nimitz on 14 Nov 2004 and vectors several towards the position to confirm

-An E-2C gets a faint radar signature but it's apparently not good enough to pass the target on to interceptors so it gets called off

-A Marine Hornet piloted by a Lt. Col. Kurth was also vectored to the area, got nothing on radar, heads back to the Nimitz, but not before he got a visual of a 'round section of turbulent water about 50-100 meters in diameter'

-At this point the two 2-seater F-18 Navy Super Hornets (FASTEAGLE 1 and FASTEAGLE 2, the former piloted by the now famous Cmdr. Favor with his weapons officer Lt. Cmdr. Slaight sitting behind him) arrive.

-Fravor (and all of this is presumably confirmed by the other 3 airmen in the area) also sees the "whitewater" disturbance in the water and initially thinks it might have been an airliner that had crashed (thus the reason for Princeton's vectoring and asking if he was armed - he wasn't as we know)

-Then they see a white, capsule-shaped, "fighter sized" object hovering ABOVE the disturbance in the water, BELOW the FASTEAGLE flight.

-Fravor tries intercept the AAV but is unable to lock on and it suddenly accelerates away, behind his F-18 and he loses visual contact. The Princeton then informs him that it has now reappearred at FASTEAGLE's previously assigned Combat Air Patrol waypoint, some 60 miles away

-FASTEAGLE turns around and heads back towards the CAP, loses contact with the AAV and doesn't see the water disturbance any more. Back on the Nimitz they pass on what they saw to the next 4 airmen getting ready to head out, who launch several hours later (this time their F-18s were equipped with FLIR)

-As we know they spotted the AAV 'hovering' below them at the same CAP, filmed it on the FLIR (helped by a radar lock), before it takes off again. The video that "appeared" on YT and is referenced by Chierici in his 2015 article is the "tick-tack" video mentioned by West ITT - they appear to be from the same incident. It has no dialogue unlike the 2017 one. The older video shows the AAV appear to rapidly accelerate away to the left of the camera.

Tldr:
Multiple airmen (including both flights of F-18s) reported (according to Cmdr. Fravor) seeing a white, capsular or cylindrical shaped unidentified aircraft, with no wings or visible propulsion system, easily outperforming the F-18s. All of this was at coordinates where the Princeton tracked these bogies with it's more advanced radar systems. These reports aren't consistent with a distant planes simply being coincidentally picked up by the FLIR by the second flight of F-18s. The rapid lateral (in relation to the viewfinder) movement of the object also doesn't fit a distant plane unless this was also another camera artifact.

The way I see it theres 2 options:

1) The videos and Fravor's (and presumably the other airmen's) statements are completely unrelated. And if the implication is that he's lying, and since he's been involved in this since the beginning, and it's clear he's been given permission to talk to the media, it would have to be some kind of government psy-op, many years in the making, with a lot of confounding stuff mixed in (like the original video getting censored). The motivation is unclear, maybe they really did steal/redirect 22 million bucks for some bullshit program and want to justify it with this but I don't see how they think they could get away with it. Either way, if this was the case, they could have just doctored the videos or done them with CGI entirely, so trying to analyze them in terms of real physics might be a waste of time.

2) the government really doesn't know what happened, which means there really is more to the story besides confusing far off planes with an AAV which presumably some smart folk would have figured out before giving it to the press and making fools of themselves. Man made, ours or OpFor? Possible connection to a submersible craft? Or actual aliens? Why they would go public with this in any scenario is also beyond me.

2) the government really doesn't know what happened, which means there really is more to the story besides confusing far off planes with an AAV which presumably some smart folk would have figured out before giving it to the press and making fools of themselves.

Click to expand...

That's not at all unprecedented though. The Chilean Navy case had many smart people look at it before giving it to the press. It was just a plane.

That's not at all unprecedented though. The Chilean Navy case had many smart people look at it before giving it to the press. It was just a plane.

Click to expand...

Something as chidlish as the Navy trolling an overzealous reporter by giving them something that people joked about being UFOs as if they were actually taking it seriously (while the brass elbow each other in the ribs about it) i could almost understand.. but then there's Fravor saying for several years that he saw what literally amounts to your standard UFO (small craft with no visible propulsion or wings doing things that normal aircraft can't do). And he names a few other aviators (including his co-pilot) that might very well say they saw the same thing. And I'm not saying that just because someone served in the military for a couple of decades they're immune to making shit up for attention or money...

but the "Department of Defense" watermark on this video and their TACID acceptance of Fravor's claims when they admitted to the existence of the AATIP without much further comment gives me pause and makes me wonder if there's any chance this was coordinated. From the original NYT piece they mention the video was 'released' in August but I can't find any more context on that... and then there is the issue of the Tick Tack video apparently being taken down for some time. But yeah, I guess its possible that Reid & Bigelow put pressure on the Pentagon to release this vid and Fravor & his guys are on the payroll and lying about what they saw(even if the story's at least a couple of years old - they might have been waiting for the right time). It would help if the DoD would confirm if these 2 clips are actually from the same time and place we're talking about

Something as chidlish as the Navy trolling an overzealous reporter by giving them something that people joked about being UFOs as if they were actually taking it seriously (while the brass elbow each other in the ribs about it) i could almost understand..

An exceptional nine-minute Navy video of a UFO displaying highly unusual behavior, studied by Chilean authorities for the last two years, is now being released to the public. The CEFAA - the Chilean government agency which investigates UFOs, or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), has been in charge of the investigation. Located within the DGAC, the equivalent of our FAA but under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force, CEFAA has committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines. None of them have been able to explain the strange flying object captured by two experienced Navy officers from a helicopter.

The Chilean government agency always makes its cases public when an investigation is complete, and acknowledges the existence of UAP when a case merits such a conclusion.

General Ricardo Bermúdez, Director of CEFAA during the investigation, told me that “We do not know what it was, but we do know what it was not.” And “what it is not” comprises a long list of conventional explanations. Here is what happened:

Content from external source

Same thing here, but with a different country. Yes it's a video of an unidentified flying object. You are reading far too much into it.

An exceptional nine-minute Navy video of a UFO displaying highly unusual behavior, studied by Chilean authorities for the last two years, is now being released to the public. The CEFAA - the Chilean government agency which investigates UFOs, or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), has been in charge of the investigation. Located within the DGAC, the equivalent of our FAA but under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force, CEFAA has committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines. None of them have been able to explain the strange flying object captured by two experienced Navy officers from a helicopter.

The Chilean government agency always makes its cases public when an investigation is complete, and acknowledges the existence of UAP when a case merits such a conclusion.

General Ricardo Bermúdez, Director of CEFAA during the investigation, told me that “We do not know what it was, but we do know what it was not.” And “what it is not” comprises a long list of conventional explanations. Here is what happened:

Content from external source

Same thing here, but with a different country. Yes it's a video of an unidentified flying object. You are reading far too much into it.

Click to expand...

Well these cases have some important differences. In Chile it was some guys on a helicopter screwing around with their FLIR and seeing something they thought was right next to them but actually much further away (as you said, the mistaken plane was on radar, just not where they were looking).

In the Nimitz case it was a missile cruiser's radar picking up a specific contact at a specific location, vectoring in aircraft who either saw the object with their Mark I eyeball well enough to tell how big it was and what it was doing or got some radar signature, all the while presumably bouncing this information back and forth with the missile cruiser, followed by the object being intercepted again a few hours later, this time captured on FLIR (visual contact unknown). You have to admit it's a pretty incredible story. So either it's made up (with the implications i mentioned) or it's not.. which means at the least it will end up in some book as a case study about the power of suggestion lol

Still on CNN they talked about the left move at the end, being of extraterrestrial origin, when you track something that far away and it veers off a little and you change zoom, of course it will zap through the screen at very earthly speed, they want to believe

A wikipedia entry has been made for the now renamed USS Princeton incident, being a wikipedia editor, i asked for its deletion, it is evidently part of Luis media campaign to reinstate his former investigation unit, but Wikipedia has a long history of promoting each "sides" of an affair even if the other side is quacky, so my deletion attempt might not stand and Luis will have his sun shine again

In the end the object does not gently drift of screen. If you bother to watch the video (both of them) and understand what it's showing, the object does anything but gently drift away.

Also its deploying a sly tactic to claim legitimacy. It mentions a completely unrelated video to present an air of authority. "this video is bunk, thus the other must be as well"

Also don't forget that because something looks like something doesn't mean it is that something. It's not because it looks like a duck that it is a duck.

Final comment, the video in question comes from a gun cam. Fighter pilots are extremely well trained people. To assume that they are incapable of using their equipment and are not competent to distinguish a plane from something unusual is really stretching it.

But hey, people on both sides have made a career on peddling bullshit.

Regardless, the body of years of honest research establishes that something not from our known civilization is seen in the skies and in bodies of water. No amount of debunking will change those facts.

A wikipedia entry has been made for the now renamed USS Princeton incident, being a wikipedia editor, i asked for its deletion, it is evidently part of Luis media campaign to reinstate his former investigation unit, but Wikipedia has a long history of promoting each "sides" of an affair even if the other side is quacky, so my deletion attempt might not stand and Luis will have his sun shine again

Your reason for deletion is odd. The writer gets some facts wrong like

Raw footage from the encounters shows oval-shaped objects that match the pilots description of objects vaguely shaped like Tic Tacs

Content from external source

implying there is multiple footage, which as far as "those in the know" are concerned, is false.

But I don't see the article make any specific claims that the story the wiki entry relates is a definitive claim of a ufo. Metabunk is not debunking the pilots story.

edit add: you also make completely unsubstantiated claims

this article here is part of a media campaign from Delonge ufo site https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ with Luis Elizondo head of the former ufo investigation at the Pentagon, probably intended to secure more funds for his project

Content from external source

Do you have proof the article was written by someone involved with Delonge's program?

Your reason for deletion is odd. The writer gets some facts wrong like

Raw footage from the encounters shows oval-shaped objects that match the pilots description of objects vaguely shaped like Tic Tacs

Content from external source

implying there is multiple footage, which as far as "those in the know" are concerned, is false.

But I don't see the article make any specific claims that the story the wiki entry relates is a definitive claim of a ufo. Metabunk is not debunking the pilots story.

edit add: you also make completely unsubstantiated claims

this article here is part of a media campaign from Delonge ufo site https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ with Luis Elizondo head of the former ufo investigation at the Pentagon, probably intended to secure more funds for his project

Content from external source

Do you have proof the article was written by someone involved with Delonge's program?

Click to expand...

I'll let Wikipedia decide, thank you, there are UFO promoters in Wikipedia too, i don't think it is of historic significance to publish every incident in the sky on wikipedia because some want to believe and it's not because it is news that it is good news, maybe we could made a wikipedia entry "the USS Nimitz incident and how some ufo lobbyists can hijack the media attention to suit their agenda" that would make a fine entry

There's been some discussion about how these infrared UFO videos show impossibly high accelerations and g-forces

The is the end of the Nimitz video where the UFO shoots off, and looks like it accelerates rapidly.

Someone pointed me to this analysis by a retired physics professor, who calculates a massive g-force at at this point on the graph when it goes from V1 to V2. You can see this here in the video when the UFO suddenly jumps and speeds up.

However he missed that this coincides with a change in zoom from 1x to 2x

So to get an accurate track, we need to shrink the second half of the video down to half size.

When we do that we see that there isn't actually any speed up, and it all proceeds at more or less the same speed. No massive g-force required.

Tldr:
Multiple airmen (including both flights of F-18s) reported (according to Cmdr. Fravor) seeing a white, capsular or cylindrical shaped unidentified aircraft, with no wings or visible propulsion system, easily outperforming the F-18s. All of this was at coordinates where the Princeton tracked these bogies with it's more advanced radar systems. These reports aren't consistent with a distant planes simply being coincidentally picked up by the FLIR by the second flight of F-18s. The rapid lateral (in relation to the viewfinder) movement of the object also doesn't fit a distant plane unless this was also another camera artifact.

Click to expand...

A couple of things I noticed in this CNN interview with Cmdr. Fravor

@ 3:04 - He describes the objects movements as ping ponging from one direction to another - it "would hit and go the other way". This is not evident anywhere in the 'tic-tac' video. All object movement and glitching, apart from the drifting off the screen at the end, can be easily explained as movement and mode/zoom switching of the camera system.

@ 4:13 - Speaking about the 'tic-tac' footage, he says, "you can't really discern what it is", but that, "there's a couple of shots when it gets closer, there's a couple of objects coming out of the bottom". Not only is this very significant claim not evident in the video, it does not appear anywhere in the Fightersweep article, nor in any of the related information on the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science COI page. Those sources, including the declassified pilot report, only describe the object as uniformly smooth. One would infer that Cmdr. Fravor never saw the object close enough with his eyes to notice anything protruding or being released from the bottom of the object, and that he is relying on the fuzzy, grainy FLIR footage to make this dubious determination. I believe this calls into question the integrity of his account.

@ 3:04 - He describes the objects movements as ping ponging from one direction to another - it "would hit and go the other way". This is not evident anywhere in the 'tic-tac' video. All object movement and glitching, apart from the drifting off the screen at the end, can be easily explained as movement and mode/zoom switching of the camera system.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the extremely rapid movement diagonally down right is clearly a camera movement, probably associated with the change from NAR (1.5°) to WFOV (6°), then it switches back to NAR, but has lost lock and the target just drifts off.

We can learn the following from a closer look at the f4.mpg file, directly downloaded from the Wayback Internet Archives:

1- In comparison with the TTS video, it lasts longer, 1’16.717 vs 1’16.209.
2- There are two missing frames in the beginning of the f4 video.
3- There are three missing frames at the end of the TTS video.

4- The overall quality is better (less compression) in the f4 file.

Also, a close inspection of the metadata (with EXIFTool) is interesting:

Compared to an original unedited mpeg-2 video (to the right), all the metadata tags are presents and correctly filled in. These are typical of the MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 standard, with the difference that MPEG-1 has lower resolution and a bitrate less than 1.5Mbit/s.

5- This line shows, besides the classic 4:3 format, that it is compliant with the NTSC standard for Americas (including USA). The mention “525 line” refers to the NTSC color encoding used for the television signal which consist of 30000/1001 interlaced (2x262.5 scanned lines) frames of video per second.

The CCIR601 mention refers to the standards as defined by the CCIR (International Telecommunication Union and Radiocommunication Sector) for encoding interlaced analog video signals in digital video signals.

Also, this is typically what we can see for a Source Input Format (“SIF”) as defined for the MPEG-1 standard. SIF is a format used for color space and subsampling, image resolution and frame rate of digital videos.

SIF is used in Low Definition TV (“LDTV”), VCD, or Mobile Television (HTV).

6- Frame rate: 30000/1001 frames per second.

7- There’s an audio track, conform to mpeg specifications, with Layer II (“MP2”) and a corresponding 192kbps bitrate. What is odd here is that the MPEG-1 Audio track, as we can hear it, looks different in the f4 file and in the TTS file, although it can be perceived as a background noise, in both cases.

I wonder if, when TTS says “it is important to note that the video was delivered without audio”, they checked at first (if there’s any in the TTS “original” file) the metadata. “Without audio” might simply mean for TTS “without any noticeable sound.

- The f4 video was cut by a software that does not let any traces on the metadata, or possibly created by an in-built system. I was thinking of the ROVER system, but looks like F/A-18 Hornets were modified with ROVER capabilities only in 2006, for the first deployment of the USS Ronald Reagan. Could another early similar system have been used?
Anyway, it have to deal with the way the video was captured and rendered either by an in-built system or later during the tech debrief. There's probably more to dig here as I would be curious to know how the video is recorded (was it really done, back in 2004, with the MPEG-1 standards?)

- Unless someone talented manipulated the video, I do not see any tampering evidence for the f4 file. I tend to think that it is a “real” untouched video, thus not a hoax. Not 100% impossible, but… there's no evidence of that.

- If all the metadata are original, then the file is compliant with the NTSC standard, meaning that it was likely created in a NTSC area (USA, Canada…) and not in an European area (in Germany for example).

- F4 video is compliant with a classic NTSC television system, in a low-resolution and bitrate SIF format.

- There’s an audio track, but what can be heard just looks like a background noise, not similar in both video though. Here also, I guess that there's more to learn.

Is this the clip you are talking about, Robert Page? I am also unsure if the two different videos shown is of the incident that Fravor witnessed...

All footage aside, what would be the possible explanations for Commander David Fravor's testimony below? He is claiming that four personal were witness to this...

Click to expand...

Commander Fravor says “I’m looking at him/them with my eyes” (2:01) and then says he got “within a mile to a half mile” (2:20) of the object.

Seems awfully close to not have better footage than what is being shown. If he had eyes on the object and was within a mile, i'd love to hear his visual description. Did he give a description? Maybe i missed it.

I don't think that video is particularly interesting in itself. The pilots story is quite remarkable though, but has it been corroborated by anyone else? There was an aircraft carrier with a crew of several thousands, a cruiser with a crew of several hundreds, and several airplanes with two pilots each. The Super Hornets would have had two persons in them each. Not sure if the Super Hornets picked up the object on radar or if only the cruiser did, but there was a radar observation. If the object was moving at extreme speeds and acceleration then that should have been visible on radar as well. Yet the only person who have confirmed this story is one of the pilots as far as I can tell. And the only piece of evidence released is the short snippet of FLIR camera video showing something.

If they are trying to disclose information why don't they release all the relevant data related to the event. If there was a formal investigation, why not release the resulting report. If there was no formal investigation, that also seems odd. They send out several jets to investigate a radar signal, the pilots report seeing a strange object, yet they do nothing else about it? (Had command figured out what it was the pilots had seen?)

I don't think that video is particularly interesting in itself. The pilots story is quite remarkable though, but has it been corroborated by anyone else? There was an aircraft carrier with a crew of several thousands, a cruiser with a crew of several hundreds, and several airplanes with two pilots each. The Super Hornets would have had two persons in them each. Not sure if the Super Hornets picked up the object on radar or if only the cruiser did, but there was a radar observation. If the object was moving at extreme speeds and acceleration then that should have been visible on radar as well. Yet the only person who have confirmed this story is one of the pilots as far as I can tell. And the only piece of evidence released is the short snippet of FLIR camera video showing something.

If they are trying to disclose information why don't they release all the relevant data related to the event. If there was a formal investigation, why not release the resulting report. If there was no formal investigation, that also seems odd. They send out several jets to investigate a radar signal, the pilots report seeing a strange object, yet they do nothing else about it? (Had command figured out what it was the pilots had seen?)

Click to expand...

There wasn't that many people involved. Yes a Nimitz class carrier can have a crew approaching 5,000 (if the the air wing is embarked) but I doubt anyone on the mess deck knew what was going on. I would be surprised if the number is more than 20. Still a big number.

There wasn't that many people involved. Yes a Nimitz class carrier can have a crew approaching 5,000 (if the the air wing is embarked) but I doubt anyone on the mess deck knew what was going on. I would be surprised if the number is more than 20. Still a big number.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, but I read somewhere the pilot was upset when he got back that they didn't debrief them properly, and that they were playing UFO-movies aboard the ship when they got back, which would indicate people were talking/joking about it.

According to some sources there were 6 planes, which means 12 pilots, that chased it and at least the USS Princeton was tracking the object on radar (some sources mention a E-2C Hawkeye as well). There must have been communications and other people monitoring the operation, and people in the command structure who knew everything? I have little knowledge about how they organize things on an air carrier but a lot of people should have seen and heard what was going on.

Yes, you're right, but I read somewhere the pilot was upset when he got back that they didn't debrief them properly, and that they were playing UFO-movies aboard the ship when they got back, which would indicate people were talking/joking about it.

According to some sources there were 6 planes, which means 12 pilots, that chased it and at least the USS Princeton was tracking the object on radar (some sources mention a E-2C Hawkeye as well). There must have been communications and other people monitoring the operation, and people in the command structure who knew everything? I have little knowledge about how they organize things on an air carrier but a lot of people should have seen and heard what was going on.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to supply the sources regarding the E2C (crew of 6) and the other Super Hornets. The clowning was probably supplied by their own squadron. Again not the thousands claimed above.

F4 video is compliant with a classic NTSC television system, in a low-resolution and bitrate SIF format.

Click to expand...

In the 2.18.7 section of the NATOPS Flight Manual for the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet, we learn that the CVRS ("Cockpit Video Recording System") contains two video tape recorders, a HUD camera and two over-the-shoulder cameras that has the capability to record the left or right DDI from direct video input:

The videos are directly recorded on removable 8mm video tape cartridges, which are commonly used for the NTSC television systems.

Then these removable cartridges can easily be post-processed to convert the analog signal to a digital one (MPEG-1 or MPEG-2) using a simple PC converter.

All of this, to me, looks quite normal and add to the legitimacy of the f4 video and the chain-of-custody to its creation, although I'm a little bit surprised to see that, even back in 2004, the Navy techs were still using the old MPEG-1 standard and analog signal recording systems.

1) The videos and Fravor's (and presumably the other airmen's) statements are completely unrelated. And if the implication is that he's lying, and since he's been involved in this since the beginning, and it's clear he's been given permission to talk to the media, it would have to be some kind of government psy-op, many years in the making, with a lot of confounding stuff mixed in (like the original video getting censored). The motivation is unclear, maybe they really did steal/redirect 22 million bucks for some bullshit program and want to justify it with this but I don't see how they think they could get away with it. Either way, if this was the case, they could have just doctored the videos or done them with CGI entirely, so trying to analyze them in terms of real physics might be a waste of time.

Click to expand...

I wondered this. Until the elusive chain-of-custody documentation is published, we won't know, particularly because none of the news channel reporters seems to be using their heads and asking better questions. Fravor hasn't confirmed whether the Nimitz clip is from his F/A-18 or whether it wasn't and he was just on the scene at some point before or after it was taken. Would be good to know. but he does reply to a question from an interviewer specifically making reference to the Nimitz video.

Debunking Nimitz clip is premature. At best you're only going to predict Fravor is a charlatan and at worst the effort is only going to how the thread was way off. Apparently there's some chain-of-custody documentation and if it is released and puts Fravor as the pilot behind the clip rather than an earlier aircraft or one soon after him then it's solid despite the magnification giving the impression of a faster moving object unless something is learned which discredits Fravor.

This is not evident anywhere in the 'tic-tac' video. All object movement and glitching, apart from the drifting off the screen at the end, can be easily explained as movement and mode/zoom switching of the camera system... One would infer that Cmdr. Fravor never saw the object close enough with his eyes to notice anything protruding or being released from the bottom of the object, and that he is relying on the fuzzy, grainy FLIR footage to make this dubious determination. I believe this calls into question the integrity of his account.

Click to expand...

He says in a clip that the the object "was in a climb and we're in a descent getting a great look at it. This whole thing takes about probably up to 5 minutes from the time we show up..." The clip is 2 minutes long (of actual footage) so in his estimation there's about probably 3 minutes we're not seeing if indeed this clip is from his intercept of the object. He also says that he could see the object with his eyes too and was within half-mile distance of the object.

Debunking Nimitz clip is premature. At best you're only going to predict Fravor is a charlatan and at worst the effort is only going to how the thread was way off. Apparently there's some chain-of-custody documentation and if it is released and puts Fravor as the pilot behind the clip rather than an earlier aircraft or one soon after him then it's solid despite the magnification giving the impression of a faster moving object unless something is learned which discredits Fravor.

Click to expand...

that's a lot of "if"s.

you can debunk certain claims easily enough. Like 'this is proof the object zoomed away at abnormally high speed' or 'this is proof of a UFO' (because there are other possible explanations eg. it looks like a plane).

you can debunk certain claims easily enough. Like 'this is proof the object zoomed away at abnormally high speed' or 'this is proof of a UFO' (because there are other possible explanations eg. it looks like a plane).

Click to expand...

Thanks for my abc's. There's one and you're ignoring that if the two are paired together by chain-of-custody documentation then you'd need to discredit Fravor rather than any claim. No, that's not a second, that's a clarification of the first.

Thanks for my abc's. There's one and you're ignoring that if the two are paired together by chain-of-custody documentation then you'd need to discredit Fravor rather than any claim. No, that's not a second, that's a clarification of the first.

Click to expand...

Metabunk focuses on specific claims of evidence. So I don't need to discredit Fravor, this thread is about the FLIR footage claimed to be of the NIMTZ event.

(although, I really can't follow what you are saying in your comment).

So I don't need to discredit Fravor, this thread is about the FLIR footage claimed to be of the NIMTZ event.

(although, I really can't follow what you are saying in your comment

Click to expand...

Well, basically, if Fravor is matched as the pilot of the jet that took the footage from which the Nimitz clip is made then Fravor's credibility supersedes the footage and any efforts you've made in debunking the clip will have be much less important because all the community have is the change in magnification being the cause for the otherwise unusual leap in velocities. Unfortunately that's all there is, but according to Fravor there's at least three minutes not available to the public and an acceleration of the object to mach 1 in 2 secondswhich is 39G's of force in a linear vector.

I think Gimbal is guff. If any chain-of-custody docs can confirm the pilot then TTSA should be pressured for the rest of Fravor's footage and any other data to corroborate his account. I don't see Gimbal going anywhere.

References:

Fravor is asked "What would you estimate the speed?" to which he replies 'supersonic' and also 'like a bullet out of a gun'. Although he doesn't give the speed you can estimate based on the comment 'supersonic'; mach 1, 768mph.

He also describes being on site about 5 minutes. The Nimitz clip is 2 minutes. So there's 3 minutes not released if this is Fravor's jet making the recording.